MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
Keep in mind he's tweeting only the juiciest quotes from the document.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Keep in mind he's tweeting only the juiciest quotes from the document.
MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
I think it's a bet that the judge agrees with the conclusion moreso than it being 'bad' per se. I guess a possibility is the judge has suggested he can't get past deference to the arb award and this is designed to suggest the unfairness of the thing
Kessler has a track record that deserves some deference here---he is not Yee or Goldberg (of the 'wells report in context' website). And he has spent time with the judge this week, so he's not doing this accidentally. Hopefully, he's correctly read the situation.
Outright accusing the NFL of leaking the phone destruction to bias the public.MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
Have we seen the entire brief. If not let's not go jumping off the Tobin just yet.
This entire fiasco has been an emotional roller coaster of epic proportions.
This entire fiasco has been an emotional roller coaster of epic proportions.
I hope he has read the judge correctly. It's fairly strong in a lot of parts. Definitely hammering the bias angle.
So I agree with above, they are hammering the arbritrator angle. Either to get Berman to move off of it or give him some room to find, but they are doing it with a sledge hammer.
Not a lawyer, but it's a little disconcerting. I would think if they were confident they could get Berman to move they wouldn't be doing it this bluntly.
So I agree with above, they are hammering the arbritrator angle. Either to get Berman to move off of it or give him some room to find, but they are doing it with a sledge hammer.
Not a lawyer, but it's a little disconcerting. I would think if they were confident they could get Berman to move they wouldn't be doing it this bluntly.
Yes, we need to see the whole thing. But the quotes are interesting, because they do imply a tonal shift from "the NFL is incompetent" to "the NFL is malicious".
Can you blame Kessler for suggesting this? At every turn before the case got to federal court the NFL was using the media to bias people's opinions on the matter. From Mort's report on down the line, the NFL knew what they were doing when they leaked certain things. The morning of Goodell's ruling it *just* so happens that a report comes out of SAS's mouth about a destroyed cell phone? That's not suspicious?Joe D Reid said:
I'm not directing this at you just in general.
Link:
https://www.nflpa.com/news/all-news/tom-brady-appeal-hearing-transcript
August 14th, 2015 filing is the link to it.
https://www.nflpa.com/news/all-news/tom-brady-appeal-hearing-transcript
August 14th, 2015 filing is the link to it.
Looks pretty tame compared to what the league has done and argued throughout. Reads to me like an appeal to reason and common sense. No idea how legally viable but these are things that I think we would all like to see addressed by a neutral party.
No, I think it's a sign they see Berman has a lot of concerns relative the due process angle, and they are hitting on those points.MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
Put it this way, in my experience, I only use loaded language if I know the Judge or if the Judge gave me some hint that led me to use loaded language as a matter of hitting those pressure points to further persuade them.
Otherwise, it's full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, and there I find it highly unlikely Kessler used the language he did because he felt Berman had adopted the report's findings.
Have we seen the NFL's yet? We don't even know that this is the louder of the two do we?yecul said:
I hope the NFL's brief goes like this.
We are the NFL and we can do whatever we want regardless of whether Mr Brady did anything wrong.
We are the NFL and we can do whatever we want regardless of whether Mr Brady did anything wrong.
Actually this is interesting, now that I'm looking at it, there's something that jumps out at me about this document:
It's written to be read aloud.
I don't mean literally, but this is written with the care for rhetoric of a speech. I dunno if it's wise or not, but Kessler really has his groove on.
It's written to be read aloud.
I don't mean literally, but this is written with the care for rhetoric of a speech. I dunno if it's wise or not, but Kessler really has his groove on.
Like what I hear...
Michael McCann @McCannSportsLaw 10m10 minutes ago
In tennis, "unforced error" is a mistake made on an easy shot in a nonpressure situation. In football, it's the NFL's Deflategate crusade.
7 retweets8 favorites
Reply
Retweet
7
Favorite
8
Michael McCann @McCannSportsLaw 10m10 minutes ago
In tennis, "unforced error" is a mistake made on an easy shot in a nonpressure situation. In football, it's the NFL's Deflategate crusade.
7 retweets8 favorites
Reply
Retweet
7
Favorite
8
It makes me think Kessler either knows he will win (and is trying to run up the score) or knows he will lose (and is playing to a different audience).
I know it's a tough bar to clear, and I've read the responses on that, but is calling attention to the malicious behavior laying the groundwork for a defamation suit? Or at least threatening it? Just curious.
Depends on how you define barking.yecul said:
If the pleading is a bunch of ad hominem attacks, then yes, it's a sign of weakness. But if your argument has substance, there's no problem with being the aggressor.
This is also pretty clearly a public document meant to walk lay people through the argument to understand why, if Brady wins, it's not some mere technicality but because the NFL is actually out of line.
This intro to the notice argument struck me:
The bolded really jumps out at me as walking someone who is not versed in law through an understanding of the process well beyond what a senior federal district judge would require. The filing basically has an embedded primer to explain the law to the public.
I fucking love it.
This intro to the notice argument struck me:
The bolded really jumps out at me as walking someone who is not versed in law through an understanding of the process well beyond what a senior federal district judge would require. The filing basically has an embedded primer to explain the law to the public.
I fucking love it.
AB in DC said:
You're correct. I just read the entire document, and as a whole it is much more measured than the tweeted snippets. It also seems extremely persuasive, but then again I'm not a lawyer.
I agree. Very persuasive. The font is a distraction though.MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
I also agree with Rev in that it's meant to be read aloud. Really solid piece of writing.
Joe D Reid said:
Wetzel mentioned defamation yesterday. I know S.S.H. said a defamation or libel claim is highly unlikely, but would they be set up for that if Berman rules in Brady's favor?
edit: beaten yet again
Think the NFL will respond with a brief that tries to explain how "a competitive rule that goes to the integrity of the game " is different from "equipment violations that affect[] the integrity of the competition and can give a team an unfair advantage".
I suppose the obvious argument would be ball != equipment, but that seems pretty stupid.
I suppose the obvious argument would be ball != equipment, but that seems pretty stupid.
There is no Rev said:
Kidding aside, I think they might be stuck arguing that the general 'integrity of the game' power sits behind any of the enumerated violations when 'integrity of the game' is actually threatened. So, hypothetically, if you had a first-time equipment violation that was so egregious it threatened the integrity of the game you could exceed the enumerated fine.
Not arguing it---just trying to think where I'd go if I were NFL
I wonder if we should take it as a sign of Kessler, et al.'s confidence in their case that they filed first. It could also be the start of the PR campaign that we all want.singaporesoxfan said:
Late Friday submission ... designed to ruin a whole bunch of NFL executives' weekend in the Hamptons.
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL 7s7 seconds ago
BREAKING: NFL just filed its opposition brief. Details to follow
BREAKING: NFL just filed its opposition brief. Details to follow
The thing that's been getting me is that there is already an equivalent violation on the books for using Stickum or similar products.PedroKsBambino said:
Deflating a ball to make it easier to handle/catch is not all that different from using stickum and that's an 8k fine.
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL 25s25 seconds ago
NFL opposition brief is only 8 pages long!
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL 3s3 seconds ago
NFL: "Supreme Court precedent precludes a retrial of Brady’s disciplinary appeal in this Court. But that is precisely what the Union seeks"'
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL 4s4 seconds ago
NFL: "At its core, NFLPA’s motion merely disputes whether discipline imposed on Brady is warranted under the CBA and the facts presented"
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL now
NFL: "The CBA provides that these questions were for the Commissioner to answer. Under the law, his judgment cannot be disturbed"
NFL opposition brief is only 8 pages long!
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL 3s3 seconds ago
NFL: "Supreme Court precedent precludes a retrial of Brady’s disciplinary appeal in this Court. But that is precisely what the Union seeks"'
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL 4s4 seconds ago
NFL: "At its core, NFLPA’s motion merely disputes whether discipline imposed on Brady is warranted under the CBA and the facts presented"
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL now
NFL: "The CBA provides that these questions were for the Commissioner to answer. Under the law, his judgment cannot be disturbed"
Does anybody know where the information that Brady turned in older phones at the appeal came from and if it's true?
The NFLPA briefing in the section arguing for Goodell's bias once again mentions that it was Brady's practice to destroy old phones due to privacy issues. I find it hard to believe Kessler would include this argument in the briefing if Brady had actually produced older phones that were not destroyed. Was that story just another example of an untruthful NFL leak?
The NFLPA briefing in the section arguing for Goodell's bias once again mentions that it was Brady's practice to destroy old phones due to privacy issues. I find it hard to believe Kessler would include this argument in the briefing if Brady had actually produced older phones that were not destroyed. Was that story just another example of an untruthful NFL leak?
PedroKsBambino said:
Totally agree. But having an "elastic clause" that you interpret as superseding any other provision of the policy sorta undermines the essence of even having a CBA, to say nothing of obliterating the CBA itself, doesn't it?
I went to a private high school that had a line in the handbook we called the Elastic Clause: "The school reserves the right to terminate its relationship with the student if the school feels its in the best interests of either the school or the student." Even as 8th graders we were able to identify what that meant.
Yeah, they used that in 8th grade to boot the kid who brought the medieval mace to school.There is no Rev said:
I have a policy where, when I get out of my car to run an errand, I always take my cell phone with me. This way, no one will see the phone and try to break into the car.MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
A few times I've left my phone in the car while I get out to run errands.
Was I lying in the first paragraph? Weird.
So, NFLPA argument -- here are the fifty ways in which the whole process was a sham and they made up evidence and lied and manipulated the rules and changed the goal posts over a seven month period.
And the NFL's argument -- It doesn't matter if we did all of that, we are totally allowed to.
If even 20% of what the NFLPA says in that brief is true (and I know 100 percent of it) how anyone can say the story here is deflated footballs is beyond my understanding. There is an AMAZING and very upsetting story here -- of lying and cheating and conspiracies -- and you could (and should) tell it without ever having to mention TB or the Patriots even once.
And the NFL's argument -- It doesn't matter if we did all of that, we are totally allowed to.
If even 20% of what the NFLPA says in that brief is true (and I know 100 percent of it) how anyone can say the story here is deflated footballs is beyond my understanding. There is an AMAZING and very upsetting story here -- of lying and cheating and conspiracies -- and you could (and should) tell it without ever having to mention TB or the Patriots even once.
I get the sense that by continually placing the first offense is a fine language in bold face Kesler is telescoping to Berman that Brady would either be OK with a small fine as a settlement or that they would not appeal it if that were the ruling.
8 pages is awesome tactically ... It may be whistling past the grave yard, but it is the best approach for the NFL in these circumstances, I think ... Getting in the weeds on the various points is a losing strategy for them.
If only we had an effective story teller here to effectively and dramatically lay out the conspiracy for the public to grasp,Punchado said: